fap_scaffold

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the appid format constraint and the destination folder. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., files created, potential overwrite), prerequisites (e.g., ufbt must be installed), or failure modes. For a scaffolding tool that creates files, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a relatively simple tool with one parameter, and the description covers the essential purpose and a key constraint. However, without an output schema or annotations, it should also specify what the tool returns or confirms after scaffolding, and any side effects. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only the appid property name with no description (0% coverage). The description adds the crucial format constraint ('lowercase letters/digits/underscore'), which is helpful. However, it does not explain the full purpose of appid or how it affects the scaffolded app, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool scaffolds a new Flipper app using ufbt into the apps/ folder. The verb 'scaffold' is specific, and the resource ('new Flipper app') distinguishes this from sibling tools like fap_build and fap_deploy, which cover building and deploying.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when creating a new Flipper app. It gives a clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use fap_build for compiling'). This is slightly below the explicit when/when-not guidance of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.